Delete: Part II

Chapter 6: Reintroducing Forgetting

In chapter 6, Mayer-Schonberger explores the reasons why “digital memory” is responsible for how we keep and maintain information. He argues that because technology has allowed us to store mass amounts of information, remembering information is no longer a conscious act. Instead, it is easily accessible over the internet, which has become a steadily growing informational bank.

To alleviate this problem, he suggests that we adopt the virtue of “digital forgetting,” which will allow us to downsize informational overload on the web and ensure that personal data is kept safe and relevant. Furthermore, having the ability to forget certain digital information bits we consume might also help in the way we observe present information. If we rely on remembering irrelevant information, then there is less of a chance that we will respond rationally with new (important) information.

Mayer-Schonberger moves on to suggest that we must find “a combination of raised human and societal awareness, technical tools, and supporting legislation,” in order to curb our resilient attitude toward informational upkeep. One way to do this, he suggests, is through expiration dates tagged to digital information. He goes on to explain that the implementation of such a tool is easily conceivable; “Users, when saving a document they have created, would have to select an expiration date in addition to the document's name and location on their hard disk” (171). By doing this, digital information will have a predetermined life-span that when completed, will delete itself from the server or disk.

Q: If we can store all of digital information successfully, why bother deleting it?

Mayer-Schonberger moves on to confront the issues facing giant informational processors. Large companies and online search engines are affected by loads of data that must be filtered in order to find the right information. The more data they create, the harder it is to find the correct information. He discusses Google and how they use complex algorithms to dissect the web's information. However, these algorithms can lead to misleading results that can be corrected with the proper technical tools. One of the ways he suggests we solve the data-pile up is again, through expiration tags. He states, “With an expiration date in place, information that has shed its value could be weeded out of digital memory, leaving processors with a significantly improved information base to use. And because primarily users, not processors, set expiration dates, such a potential increase in information quality may cost processors little if any money.” (175).

He concludes the chapter by discussing the ways in which we can commit to expiration dates for our digital information, and extends his analysis by including the hurdles we would have to overcome in order to properly execute this new habit. However, he does explain that expiration dates alone will not solve our informational overload. “As is obvious, expiration dates are not a one-size-fits-all solution. A whole range of options are conceivable, from a bare bones implementation of the core idea to more complex and far-reaching versions. Different implementations may vary widely, and no version is inherently better than the others. Which version a society selects depends not just on the type and context of information, but also on society's preferences and values, as well as the institutions at its disposal to enforce it” (188-9).

Q: What are some other alternatives we can think of that could work?